Bug 477475

Summary: [un-extra-fonts] Please convert to new font packaging guidelines
Product: [Fedora] Fedora Reporter: Nicolas Mailhot <nicolas.mailhot>
Component: un-extra-fontsAssignee: Daiki Ueno <dueno>
Status: CLOSED ERRATA QA Contact: Fedora Extras Quality Assurance <extras-qa>
Severity: medium Docs Contact:
Priority: medium    
Version: 13CC: fonts-bugs, i18n-bugs, petersen, smallvil
Target Milestone: ---   
Target Release: ---   
Hardware: All   
OS: Linux   
Whiteboard:
Fixed In Version: un-extra-fonts-1.0.2-0.10.080608.fc11 Doc Type: Bug Fix
Doc Text:
Story Points: ---
Clone Of: Environment:
Last Closed: 2010-05-22 01:51:05 UTC Type: ---
Regression: --- Mount Type: ---
Documentation: --- CRM:
Verified Versions: Category: ---
oVirt Team: --- RHEL 7.3 requirements from Atomic Host:
Cloudforms Team: --- Target Upstream Version:
Embargoed:
Bug Depends On:    
Bug Blocks: 477044    
Attachments:
Description Flags
patch to adjust the package to the new font policy
none
patch to adjust the package to the new font policy (v2) none

Description Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-21 00:42:38 UTC
This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files:                                                                                                                                                             repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq                                                                                                                                                             Unfortunately the script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now.                                                                                                                                                              Otherwise, you should know that:                                                                                                                                                              - Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package or subpackage: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages                                                                                - our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package. http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18) http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_package http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_template http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts                                                                                                                                                              Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide.                                                                                                                                                             If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories.                                                                                                                                                              It is preferred to make a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family                                                                                                                                                              The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe.                                                                                                                                                              The following packages have already been converted and can serve as examples: - andika-fonts - apanov-heuristica-fonts - bitstream-vera-fonts - charis-fonts - dejavu-fonts - ecolier-court-fonts - edrip-fonts - gfs-ambrosia-fonts - gfs-artemisia-fonts - gfs-baskerville-fonts - gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts - gfs-bodoni-fonts - gfs-complutum-fonts - gfs-didot-classic-fonts - gfs-didot-fonts - gfs-eustace-fonts - gfs-fleischman-fonts - gfs-garaldus-fonts - gfs-gazis-fonts - gfs-jackson-fonts - gfs-neohellenic-fonts - gfs-nicefore-fonts - gfs-olga-fonts - gfs-porson-fonts - gfs-solomos-fonts - gfs-theokritos-fonts - stix-fonts - yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts                                                                                                                                                           If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com

Comment 1 Nicolas Mailhot 2008-12-21 00:57:34 UTC
[Since the bot made a mess of the text here it is again in properly indented form.]

This bug has been filed because we've detected your package includes one or several font files:

repoquery -C --repoid=rawhide -f '*.ttf' -f '*.otf' -f '*.pfb' -f '*.pfa' --qf='%{SOURCERPM}\n' |sed -e 's+-[0-9.-]*\.fc[123456789]\(.*\)src.rpm++g'|sort|uniq

Unfortunately this script does not detect symlinks to other packages, so if that's your case, you can close this bug report now.

Otherwise, you should know that:

— Fedora guidelines demand the packaging of fonts in a separate package (or subpackage):
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Packaging/Guidelines#Avoid_bundling_of_fonts_in_other_packages

— our font packaging guidelines recently changed, and every package that ships fonts must be adapted to the new templates available in the fontpackages-devel package:
  – http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Fonts_packaging_automation_(2008-11-18)
  – http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_fonts_policy_packagehttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Simple_fonts_spec_templatehttp://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_for_multiple_fonts

Please make your package conform to the current guidelines in rawhide (you can use the fontpackages package in F9 or F10 to test, but only submit changes to rawhide please).

If your package is not principaly a font package, depending on a separate font package or subpackage is the prefered solution. If your application does not use fontconfig you can always package symlinks to the files provided by the font package and installed in the correct fontconfig directories.

It is preferred to create a font package or subpackage per font family, though it is not currently a hard guidelines requirement (it may become before Fedora 11 is released). The definition of a font family is given on:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fonts_spec_template_notes/font-family

The new templates should make the creation of font subpackages easy and safe.

The following packages have already been converted by their packager and can serve as examples:
❄ andika-fonts
❄ apanov-heuristica-fonts
❄ bitstream-vera-fonts
❄ charis-fonts
❄ dejavu-fonts
❄ ecolier-court-fonts
❄ edrip-fonts
❄ gfs-ambrosia-fonts
❄ gfs-artemisia-fonts
❄ gfs-baskerville-fonts
❄ gfs-bodoni-classic-fonts
❄ gfs-bodoni-fonts
❄ gfs-complutum-fonts
❄ gfs-didot-classic-fonts
❄ gfs-didot-fonts
❄ gfs-eustace-fonts
❄ gfs-fleischman-fonts
❄ gfs-garaldus-fonts
❄ gfs-gazis-fonts
❄ gfs-jackson-fonts
❄ gfs-neohellenic-fonts
❄ gfs-nicefore-fonts
❄ gfs-olga-fonts
❄ gfs-porson-fonts
❄ gfs-solomos-fonts
❄ gfs-theokritos-fonts
❄ stix-fonts
❄ yanone-kaffeesatz-fonts

If you have any remaining questions about the new guidelines please ask them on:
fedora-fonts-list at redhat.com

Comment 2 Nicolas Mailhot 2009-01-11 15:20:34 UTC
To help packagers manage the transition to the new guidelines, we've published the following FAQ

http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_other_packages_(FAQ)

Comment 3 Nicolas Mailhot 2009-01-14 18:38:16 UTC
FPC approved those two additional guidelines recently, please take them into account if you need to create or update a fonts package or subpackage:

– 2009-01-14: naming
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_naming_%282009-01-13%29

— 2009-01-06: exact splitting rules
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/PackagingDrafts/Font_package_splitting_rules_%282008-12-21%29

(packagers that can drop font files and just depend on an existing font package are not impacted)

Comment 4 Nicolas Mailhot 2009-02-18 19:33:02 UTC
This is a reminder for all the packagers that still have bugs open about adapting to font packaging guidelines there is only one month left before Fedora 11 beta:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Releases/11/Schedule

A week of this month will see the Fedora 11 mass rebuild, that will load the build farm:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_11_Mass_Rebuild

As already converted packages showed it is quite possible to make mistakes during the conversion. Please make releng and QA happy and don't wait till the last minute to do your changes (avoid pre-beta panic). If possible start before the mass rebuild so we don't burn cycles on incorrect packages.

The PackageKit enhancements stated for Fedora 11 assume fonts and font-using packages are sane (basically respect packaging guidelines). It is quite possible that not-converted packages will interact with the F11 font autoinstall feature in "interesting" ways.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Features/AutomaticFontInstallation

We don't want that

There is extensive documentation on the wiki and most of your questions have likely already been answered there. Please do read the FAQ before making more work for the support team by asking questions answered there.
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Shipping_fonts_in_Fedora_%28FAQ%29

Comment 5 Bug Zapper 2009-06-09 10:27:03 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 11 development cycle.
Changing version to '11'.

More information and reason for this action is here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping

Comment 6 Jens Petersen 2009-12-09 07:22:18 UTC
Taking this since I sponsored smallvil.

Comment 7 Bug Zapper 2010-03-15 12:22:30 UTC
This bug appears to have been reported against 'rawhide' during the Fedora 13 development cycle.
Changing version to '13'.

More information and reason for this action is here:
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping

Comment 8 Jens Petersen 2010-04-23 01:06:04 UTC
Ueno-san, do you mind taking this one?

I think you can base the packaging on un-core-fonts
which I updated a while back - though it might need
some further tweaks too to be completely uptodate too.

Comment 9 Daiki Ueno 2010-04-23 10:03:56 UTC
Not at all :) I'll attach a diff to the new spec which hopefully complies with the new font policy.

Comment 10 Daiki Ueno 2010-04-23 10:04:49 UTC
Created attachment 408561 [details]
patch to adjust the package to the new font policy

Comment 11 Fedora Admin XMLRPC Client 2010-04-24 05:46:40 UTC
This package has changed ownership in the Fedora Package Database.  Reassigning to the new owner of this component.

Comment 12 Daiki Ueno 2010-04-26 05:15:12 UTC
Created attachment 409063 [details]
patch to adjust the package to the new font policy (v2)

minimize the change from the original spec

Comment 13 Fedora Update System 2010-04-27 08:48:30 UTC
un-extra-fonts-1.0.2-0.10.080608.fc13 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 13.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/un-extra-fonts-1.0.2-0.10.080608.fc13

Comment 14 Fedora Update System 2010-04-27 08:49:30 UTC
un-extra-fonts-1.0.2-0.10.080608.fc12 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 12.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/un-extra-fonts-1.0.2-0.10.080608.fc12

Comment 15 Fedora Update System 2010-04-27 08:51:10 UTC
un-extra-fonts-1.0.2-0.10.080608.fc11 has been submitted as an update for Fedora 11.
http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/un-extra-fonts-1.0.2-0.10.080608.fc11

Comment 16 Fedora Update System 2010-04-28 01:11:24 UTC
un-extra-fonts-1.0.2-0.10.080608.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update un-extra-fonts'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/un-extra-fonts-1.0.2-0.10.080608.fc11

Comment 17 Fedora Update System 2010-04-28 01:19:38 UTC
un-extra-fonts-1.0.2-0.10.080608.fc12 has been pushed to the Fedora 12 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update un-extra-fonts'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/un-extra-fonts-1.0.2-0.10.080608.fc12

Comment 18 Fedora Update System 2010-04-28 01:20:02 UTC
un-extra-fonts-1.0.2-0.10.080608.fc13 has been pushed to the Fedora 13 testing repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.
 If you want to test the update, you can install it with 
 su -c 'yum --enablerepo=updates-testing update un-extra-fonts'.  You can provide feedback for this update here: http://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/un-extra-fonts-1.0.2-0.10.080608.fc13

Comment 19 Fedora Update System 2010-05-22 01:50:57 UTC
un-extra-fonts-1.0.2-0.10.080608.fc11 has been pushed to the Fedora 11 stable repository.  If problems still persist, please make note of it in this bug report.